[rest of e-mail deleted by DPF due to copyright complaint by the troll]

I am unsure of the legal requirements for public forums and will be seeking some legal advice concerning the matter. If I am not reinstated as a blogger on your site, I will undertake a test case against Kiwiblog for limiting peoples right to voice an opinion on a public forum. I will also inform the media of such action. …

[rest of e-mail deleted by DPF due to copyright complaint by the troll]

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Todd.

You know if Todd has stopped his e-mail with his apology, I probably would have relented and let him back in after a period of suspension.

But threaten me with legal action for your right to comment on my blog. Well fuck that. First of all you show yourself to be very very stupid – my blog is not a public forum. It is my private property, and I allow people the privilege of commenting here at my discretion. I would greatly enjoy any court case where someone tries to gain a legal right to comment on my blog – it would be hilarious.

Todd also threatened to expose what I did in banning him to the media. Well I’ve done that for him. For those who wonder why Todd got booted, feel free to wade through the 280 comments in this thread, especially from around 5.30 pm onwards .

First time I have had someone threaten to sue me for their “right” to comment here. I really didn’t think there was anyone that stupid around.

UPDATE: Todd says he was going to expose me to the media, but when I blogged his complaint letter so the media could see it, he then decided he did not want it public and filed a copyright complaint with my ISP. Hence I have removed most of his e-mail from the post. The remaining sections fall under fair use provisions.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 13th, 2011 at 9:11 am and is filed under Kiwiblog.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

David, one of the things I like about you is that you know what a property right is. It is in part the right to kick people out. Todd, like probably a majority of New Zealanders I suspect, does not understand this. I fear the day when you will not be able to bar Todd from your own blog, and I think it will happen in this country.

First time I have had someone threaten to sue me for their “right” to comment here

Such is life at the top. Telecom and Microsoft run into the same sorts of problems.

Todd is obviously well educated, he writes well in the letter. But, seriously, what was he on in all that nonsense posting. Good decision to kick I say. Between Todd and Philu that thread is unbearable.

The reality is that Todd/Greenfly has had the last laugh, this letter is clearly a wind up, no doubt Todd/Greenfly and the rest of the Greens will be laughing into their decaf coffee’s about now and slapping each other on the back over at Frogblog.

The same Frogblog that bans anybody who dares differ with the Green view of the world.

Let him back at some stage, I think you are over-reacting to the legal threat. You are being a bit petulant yourself over this. Forgive and forget and rise above it all. Just because you have the power to kick him off – relent at some stage in the name of free speech. Providing his comments do not present a legal risk to you – that would an exception. Petulance reflects badly on you, that is teenage stuff and Whaleoil who we all know has issues.

He should go and join Jim Anderton, the oldest living fossil in NZ, who self-importantly huffed off to yet another highly-paid official to complain that the Nordmeyer Black Budget did not incite riots and the footage shown in the beer ad was from the waterfront riots. And he knew, because he was there! Apart from reminding us just how old he is, does Anderton really think we are all so dumb we learn our history from 30 second ads on TV?
Do we need to clean up other ads that haven’t stuck to historical or other facts. Or, spare us, movies, starting with The King’s Speech?
If it is such a biggie for him, why not bring it up in Parliament? Or write a letter to the paper like all those saddos (mainly old codgers like him) who love highlighting other people’s mistakes.
Do we really need these over-paid public servants and boards solemnly pontificating to us about what we can think and say. If we don’t like something we can take umbrage all on our own. I’d ban all these state Inquisitions.
Public opinion is surely powerful enough to keep advertisers and broadcasters straight!

Lets hope he does initiate legal action. We’ll get to find out who he is.

I haven’t ever agreed with the criticisms levelled at Ure , RB and I guess even me, because if you don’t want to read what anyone says, then just skip it. I find those criticisms a bit school-maamy actually.

But it did strike me when that Todd reached the crescendo prior to getting the bullet, the sheer volume of posts was so disruptive I thought that it was in fact an attempt to so severely disrup the blog as to render it unusable.

Sounds like a fifteen year old thinking he was being cool by making silly comments. Wonder if the lawyer he asks will charge him for making such a silly suggestion – it’s always been the right of editors to control the content of their publications, tree based or other wise.

I only got through the first 10 comments by Todd before giving up. His behaviour was like poking at dogs with sticks and then complaining about being bitten.

All I was doing was trying to install some humour within my posts. Clearly this has divided the forum. I was debating relevant issues and responding accordingly.

Is patent rubbish. The first series of comments were inane, irrelevant jibes intended to get a response. Unfortunately he got them, and leveraged off them into the sets of personal attacks.

The best response to that sort of nonsense is to ignore them. It is a strategy unfortunately unable to be adhered to by most. Just look at the Waitangi debacle with the $1000 “koha”. Best response was to state that no coverage from the lower marae will be forthcoming due to unacceptable demands from the marae board and leave it at that.

Nothing leaves idiots so dumbfounded than discovering that they are not that important.

(T)odd – “or have a closed forum because of a certain political viewpoint.”

Phool has been allowed to make 10,000 nonsensical leftard screeds, only a complete retard would claim this forum is closed to a certain political viewpoint. You seem to be confusing Kiwiblog with Red Alert.

DPF, I absolute agree with your banning of Todd, because it is your property. His/her (Todd’s) messages here sound like someone who advocates bestiality.

However, I didn’t know that you’re proponent of property rights, since you were a strong supporter of the Govt (David Cunliffe) kneecapping Telecom a few years ago. What about the property rights of those ma & pa who lost their Telecom share values from that Labour Govt anti-property rights action? Do you only value property rights when it is yours but not others? I hear you say, that Telecom’s case was different since the law made/bound them to certain conditions that they must abide by. How about if the Govt came up with a law allowing anyone and everyone to make comments on blogs where blog-owners can’t ban a commentator irrelevant of their behaviour?

I recommend that you (and anyone else) on this blog should read Not PC’s (philosophical-based) definition of rights.

Why I keep bringing this up. Well, it is obvious in this case; that I can see that you defend your property rights but blind to rights of others (Telecom?). See, if one sticks to the well-grounded objective definition of rights as advocated by Peter Creswell, then there is no contradiction at all (in reality – either in law or life in general).

The danger of this arbitrarily defining rights by our lawmakers or the UN (ie, from advocates who don’t base it on well-grounded objective philosophical-based definition), because they will shift according to whims of politicians. If the wind blows from that direction, the goal post will shift. If it blows from the opposite direction, again the goal post will shift. You can see what I mean here, because it has been brought up recently (Clare Curan) at RedAlert that internet access is a human rights, which is exactly the bogus rights that Peter Creswell is talking about in his short summary above. It is more likely that at a future date, the UN will declare internet access as a human rights, which is a bullshit rights.

As I said many times here, that objective reality doesn’t contradict itself, however we humans do.

Your blog v his sense of entitlement.
My vote is he stays banned.
Not that I believe I have a vote. (the blog is yours)
My personal trend with the difficult and unpleasant people is leave them where they want to be.
Just not around me.

” I have to power to kick anyone off i don’t like, it is MY property I do as I like etc etc”. Yuck is my response to that. Petulance of that kind is not the behavior of an adult. A teenage girl perhaps, a dreadful old queen perhaps. Chris Cater springs to mind. Let Todd back at some stage, let him debate with others, even if it is offensive.

Falafulu: good post. Yes, much as I like David’s position with respect to his own property, I have noticed, shall we say, slightly less respect shown to others’, in particular those of shareholders in Telecom and Vodafone.

And that is a problem. If every believes in property rights only with respect to what they themselves own, then there is no property.

I’d go further. Idiots, often teenage idiots, like to troll on blogs. Lefty teenage idiots do it on right-wing blogs, righty teenage idiots do it on left-wing blogs. After trying it a couple times they learn that it isn’t half as funny as they thought, and everyone’s ignoring them. The smart ones (and smart people can be idiots too) start to actually engage and learn something. The dumb ones stay banned.

DPF, I’d let him back, but make it clear that mindless trolling about something stupid like brains isn’t tolerated. Make some arguments, make some points, act politely, he’s welcome back. I’d also point out that half of the comments on a thread isn’t proportionate. No more comments than philu should be the rule, and ideally about half as many. He’s clearly capable of making some arguments, it was a bit stupid to make a threat about legal action but that’s just immaturity. I’d just cut him a little slack, make it clear what the rules are, and that a repeat offence will result in a permanent banning. Shit, we give kids a second (and third, and fourth) chance for stealing cars,

It would actually be quite helpful to have a court case about this and get the issue formally sorted. While Todd’s side of the case doesn’t appear strong, there are a number of arguments that can be made to support his position. Just for argument’s sake, wouldn’t it be interesting if blog “owners” would be estopped from removing comment that otherwise stayed within the confines of published rules? (Just think of the discussion that would arise at the Standard, Frog or Red Alert).

I would suggest to David to get around the table with Todd and turn this into a test case, there will be plenty of lawyers out there who would take it on pro bono, so it could be done for little cost.

I didn’t think Todd’s sustained idiocy was Happy Mischief at all – there’s all sorts of rubbish from time to time, especially on GD, but the Todd attack was the most persistent and annoying I’ve seen here, especially when it spread across all threads.

All I was doing was trying to install some humour within my posts.

Even if it was humorous initially (not to me) the persistency of repeats, especially after a number of comments pointing out the unfunniness and amount of irritation it was causing, made it clear that extreme disruption was the intention.

There’s nothing to stop Todd from apologising and assuring he won’t be so stupid again. And there’s nothing to make DPF change his decision.

“Even if it was humorous initially (not to me) the persistency of repeats, especially after a number of comments pointing out the unfunniness and amount of irritation it was causing, made it clear that extreme disruption was the intention.”

No it was childish and over the top but it takes all sorts to make up the rich tapestry we call life and I always feel a little uncomfortable when someone is silenced in an arbitrary manner without warning.

Those of us who push the envelope know whats coming and sometimes we just do it to get a break from this addiction called Kiwiblog.

However it is Davids blog and he can do as he sees fit. I have to say he is pretty lenient most of the time and that is rare when compared to the socialist blogs.

Still freedom of speech has never rated as highly as toeing the party line amongst lefties.

Todd’s silly posts that day are hardly the crime of the century. While he did himself no favours with his so-called apology, I’d just ‘forgive and forget’ and move on.
I’m more bothered with the posts where people are bullying others and/or just being outright abusive and nasty. Often these go unchallenged (ie no demerits).
But as DPF says – at the end of the day it’s his blog.

I decided to test this claim by using the socratic method on one of their threads where they criticised “laddish” appreciation of women. My second post was put into moderation; nothing offensive, no personal attacks, trolling or even particularly robust language.

Unless the moderators are asleep it doesn’t appear that open to me. Far less so than what you’d find here.

There is some odd posting sometimes, philu is usually incoherent & abominably formatted. There’s the guy in Germany?, who sometimes posts while pissed….and it shows. But, they’re forgivable & at least debate the issues…..when they sober up. Or in philu’s case, kills his stone by having a good feed…heh.

The same Frogblog that bans anybody who dares differ with the Green view of the world.

Contrary to your assertion, very few commenters have ever been banned from Frogblog, and none have been banned for differing from the Green view of the world.

There are many right wingers (eg Gerrit, photonz1) over at Frogblog who have commented there for many years without a problem. The reason a small number of commenters have been banned there have been persistent use of offensive language, persistent threadjacking, or persistant abuse directed towards me and the Green MPs (making continued unfounded and derogatory comments about one Green MP’s mental health and claiming others are communists doesn’t help, big bruv).

@adze 3:02 pm

No problem with either of your comments at Frogblog from my point of view. Were you logged in there for the second comment you refer to? If you comment there when not logged in and just provide an email address it goes automatically into moderation to prevent commenters stealing the identity of others.

Reading through Todd’s comments about eating brains…..that was just idiot stuff.

Quite true… juvenile and pathetic are words that come to mind.

But then again, Deborah Coddington can allege in the HoS that the left want to “drug your braaaaains” and:
1. No one in ACT says “Yeah, sorry, yet another fruitcake we paid with your money. Won’t happen again, honest”.
2. A newspaper pays her to write that drivel; and
3. DPF picks it up and repeats it!

To quote Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does”, regardless of whether it’s on Kiwiblog or in the HoS.

for the 1st time ever, I had a look at frogblog and there is the bit about the emotional speech Turei gave about her Dad .. oh God .. all that time money and effort on becoming a lawyer , and time spent in bizarre political parties not mentioned, and she wants to be a politician. I thought Tremain’s speech about his Dad and Grandparents was far more telling.
The greens give me the shits. They exploit the emotions of the public, who want to do the right thing for the planet, by demanding the Govt follow a list of policies that would destroy our international viability. A Green/Labour/Maori/Winston1st coalition would be a disaster

Perhaps one difference between Todd & Coddington is the deliberate use of genuine language constructs to make a clear and real point – that is, a little hyperbole to illustrate a point.

The point; that simply taking Morgan’s money and redistributing it would not provide true equality as his ideas and capabilities are what really create the comparative inequality – the money is a by-product which provides a handy point of measurement, but is not the ‘source’ of the inequality. You can tax his earnings as much as you like, but his ideas and abilities remain with him. The result is the poor get a little more money and remain as unequal as before.

Or to put it another way, Coddington made some clear points and legitimate debate. Todd was merely indulging in some virtual tossing for his own amusement. I do hope the climax was worth it for him.

Rex don’t be an idiot. She didn’t say that 300 times and say nothing else.

So stupidty’s okay in small doses?

bhudson says:

a little hyperbole to illustrate a point.

I know all about hyperbole, I used to host talkback But I never said anything that stupid. “The left want to drug people with intelligence” is up there in the hyperbole stakes with “John Key eats babies”. I might expect it from a talkback caller, but not someone who’s paid good money to advance public debate.

Rex, stop pretending to be stupider than you are. You know perfectly well she didn’t say ““The left want to…” she said “If the gaps are really to be closed, spirit-levellers would have to…”. It is illustrating how silly the left’s goals are by showing what ridiculous means you would have to use to actually acheive them. Don’t pretend you don’t understand this, you’re just demeaning yourself for a meaningless cheap point that will only impress those with poor reading comprehension ( hi phool!)

Like this from BluePeter on a frogblog thread about John Key’s failure to condemn a British MEP’s comments supporting the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, for example, Peter?

A classic example of trolling and attempting to jack the thread to a completely unrelated topic!

BluePeter
Posted February 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM

BTW: Keith continuing his streak of “being wrong about things”

“The Taser is saving lives, and many criminals are simply surrendering at the sight of it, police say. Nine people were shot with a Taser in its first year of use and some incidents were so violent, the offender could have been shot with a firearm, if the stun gun had not been available…Wellington area commander Inspector Pete Cowan said: “Potentially it was a case where a person could have been shot. It was a very, very good example of where … the Taser saved the offender’s life and potentially other members of the public and police.” …”

No problem with either of your comments at Frogblog from my point of view. Were you logged in there for the second comment you refer to? If you comment there when not logged in and just provide an email address it goes automatically into moderation to prevent commenters stealing the identity of others.

Thanks for the reply, frog. I did it the way you described and didn’t log on – but also didn’t do anything different when I posted my first comment (which didn’t go into moderation). No matter though.

I’m not sure if the it’s the same as moderation, but last election when you had the “Vote for Me” campaign, I uploaded a cute photo of some Palestinian children, and it was rejected by the moderators. I’m not sure why, although they were holding a Hamas Missile … But I was told that Hamas are the “colleagues” of the Green party?

In your recent blog post, you call Benyamin Netanyahu the “Prime Monster”. Can I assume that you aren’t his colleague, although you are the colleague of Hamas? So why would my photo be rejected?

Much as it pains me to agree with Phil for the second time this week, I agree that Todd wasn’t Greenfly, or Greenfly’s alter-ego Village Idiot (an accurate self-parody IMHO). “Greenfly” has his own blog under his real name, and comments Greenfly/Village Idiot-like at other blogs, mine included, again under his real name.

DPF, this truly would be a fantastic ‘test case’. I mean, let’s face it, the Rule of Law and the basic concepts of private property are under constant attack nowadays (and have been for quite some time). The sad fact is that this fool doesn’t realise the ‘test’ would not be about ‘public forums’, but about individual choice (something you may exert, on your own property, with near complete discretion). I wouldn’t be surprised if some judge actually thought this sort of thing worthy of being ‘heard’. Might be worth a chuckle just to see this fool spend money to actually be laughed out of the court. Still, I suspect this is nothing more than some pubescent teenager thinking himself ‘clever’ and wasting all of our time, particularly yours. You should publish the summons if he’s actually stupid enough.

You know perfectly well she didn’t say ““The left want to…” she said “If the gaps are really to be closed, spirit-levellers would have to…”.

…you’re just demeaning yourself for a meaningless cheap point

Alright fair enough I was being glib. But I really can’t be bothered taking people like Coddington seriously enough to argue at a higher level.

You’re right about what she’s said (though I was going for what I see as the underlying message to the frothers on the right) but in fact that shows utter incomprehension of, or misrepresentation of, what the Spirit Level is saying. In fact the authors claim the opposite: it doesn’t matter how smart or stupid you are, if you take the smart guy’s money and give it to the stupid guy, then the stupid guy will somehow magically succeed (they’re wrong of course).

No need to remove the smart guy’s brains. But someone’s clearly done so to Coddington.

Meanwhile on a different planet entirely:

Cameron – you are SO ill-disciplined.

Weren’t you told at the highest levels not to ‘engage’ with Penny Bright?

That’s hilarious. After walking through several steel doors, dialling a secret number and being whisked into the basement in a telephone booth, the Cone of Silence safely in place, a high level National Party operative instructs Whaleoil on the inherent danger of “engaging” with the enemy… there’s certainly an air of Kaos about the campaign

I’m personally benefiting from NZ’s growing indebtedness. Not by choice, it just happens to be that way because of how my retirement savings are distributed. In fact I’d prefer if NZ did not have a growing indebtedness.

Tranzrail? Seriously?

it hasn’t crossed your mind the possibility that John Key was acting as Leader of the Opposition and not concerned about his portfolio?

– Anyone can make an OIA request. Anyone.
– Do you seriously think JK was trying to gain insider trading knowledge in person and in open parliament?
– How much did he make from this?

I doubt that even Michael Cullen would entertain such a fantastic idea. What he’d imply to score points is another matter.

There are plenty of unethical businesses out there Penny that are harming your average NZ’er far more than John Key ever will and walking away with millions. That’s a bigger scandal in my book.

Did you dig into Philip Field? If not, then this JK stuff just looks like politics.

Want to have an adult discussion about corruption and the lack of genuine transparency in New Zealand ?

Be a major change from the petty sniping?:)

Try this…………….

CORRUPTION REALITY CHECKLIST – NEW ZEALAND

1. Has NZ ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption ? NO

2. Does NZ have an independent anti-corruption body tasked with educating the
public and PREVENTING corruption? NO

3. Do NZ ‘s laws ensure transparency in the funding of candidates for elected public office and political parties at central government level ? NO

4. Do NZ Members of Parliament have a ‘Code of Conduct’? NO

5. Do NZ Local Govt elected reps have a ‘Code of Conduct’? YES

6. Is it an offence for NZ Local Govt elected reps to breach the ‘Code of Conduct’? NO

7. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Govt elected reps? NO

8. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Central Govt staff responsible for procurement? NO

9. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Govt staff responsible for procurement? NO

10. Is there a lawful requirement for details of ‘contracts issued’ – including the name of the contractor; scope, term and value of the contract to be published in NZ Central Govt Public Sector, and Local Govt (Council) Annual Reports so that they are available for public scrutiny? NO

11. Is it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Central Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority? NO

12. Is it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Local Govt public finances be undertaken to substantiate that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority? NO

13. Does NZ have a legally-enforcable ‘Code of Conduct’ for members of the NZ Judiciary? NO

14. Are all NZ Court proceedings recorded, and audio records made available to parties who request them? NO

15. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ Judicial ‘Register of Interests’? NO

16. Is there a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ ‘Register of Lobbyists’ at Central Govt Ministerial level? NO

17. Is there a legal requirement at NZ Central and Local Govt level for a ‘post-separation employment quarantine ‘ period, from the time officials leave the public service to take up a similar role in the private sector? NO

18. Is it a lawful requirement that it is only a binding vote of the public majority that can determine whether public assets held at NZ Central Govt or Local Govt level are sold; or long-term leased via Public-Private –Partnerships? NO

19. Is it unlawful in NZ for politicians to knowingly misrepresent their policies prior to election at central or local government level? NO

20. Do NZ laws promote and protect individuals, NGOs and community-based organisations who are ‘whistleblowing’ against ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices at central and local govt level and within the judiciary? NO

PS: What happened to all venomous ‘anonymous’ snakes on Kiwiblog?
Slithered back under your rocks and having your ‘hissy fits’ in private now are you?

There are several possibilities:

1) Most of us have jobs to go to (because we are productive members of society, not parasites), and are asleep after 1.30am on a Monday morning
2) There’s a little gizmo called RIP which runs on Firefox, and allows discerning Kiwibloggers to filter out annoying trolls, frutiloops and conspiracy theorists
3) Your sphere of influence is not as large as you think it is, and as you would like it to be.

Inventory2
More chance of being “Future MP for Botany?” than Penny Bright …

I’m personally benefiting from NZ’s growing indebtedness. Not by choice, it just happens to be that way because of how my retirement savings are distributed. In fact I’d prefer if NZ did not have a growing indebtedness.

Tranzrail? Seriously?

it hasn’t crossed your mind the possibility that John Key was acting as Leader of the Opposition and not concerned about his portfolio?

Jim (182) Says:
February 14th, 2011 at 1:36 am
“- Anyone can make an OIA request. Anyone.
– Do you seriously think JK was trying to gain insider trading knowledge in person and in open parliament?
– How much did he make from this?

I doubt that even Michael Cullen would entertain such a fantastic idea. What he’d imply to score points is another matter.

There are plenty of unethical businesses out there Penny that are harming your average NZ’er far more than John Key ever will and walking away with millions. That’s a bigger scandal in my book.

Did you dig into Philip Field? If not, then this JK stuff just looks like politics.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was responding to ‘Jim’, ‘Inventory 2′.

I was showing the work that I AM doing in opposing ‘unethical business’ /corruption and fighting for genuine transparency.

How is that ‘threadjacking’?

Don’t you like robust debate on the issues?

Prefer the infantile, petty, ad hominum sniping and personal attacks?

Wouldn’t you agree that I am helping to considerably raise the level of debate and discussion on Kiwiblog with my well-considered opinions, which are based on facts and evidence?

The facts are – that I have actually made the effort to find out more about corruption and how to fight it by getting over to two significant anti-corruption Conferences (thanks to those who helped out financially to get me over to the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009, and the 14th Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference in 2010.

Not only did I learn a lot – but I have made a number of contacts with international experts – some of whom I am now in regular correspondence.

See- that’s the thing about activists – (despite the bad press) we do have an ability to get off our butts and get things done?

And- with all due respect – I’m sure David Farrar is quite capable of telling me himself if he finds my attempts at informed debate and discussion ‘threadjacking’?

I mean it is HIS blog – not yours isn’t it?

Giving freedom of expression to those whose views you adamantly oppose is the true test of commitment to freedom of expression.

A test Mr ‘Freedom of expression’ (not) Cameron Slater has just failed.

Miserably.

It appears that he has banned me because I called him a National Party ‘hack’?